Tentative Sanctions Against Translator in Toyota Probes

A federal judge has tentatively sanctioned a former translator and subcontractor for Toyota who posted dozens of confidential documents relating to its sudden-acceleration recalls on her blog.

At the same time, the judge rejected repeated attempts by Toyota attorney Lisa Gilford to extend the sanctions order as to hundreds of other documents against translator Betsy Benjaminson, a self-described whistleblower.

At a hearing on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge James Selna of the Central District of California found that most of the documents that Toyota sought to include as part of the sanction were “simply not covered by the contempt order” because Benjaminson hadn’t yet signed a protective order designating them confidential at the time she obtained them.

Benjaminson, who was a subcontractor for Toyota assigned to translate documents from Japanese to English amid probes over sudden-acceleration recalls, later worked for plaintiffs attorneys in the litigation. She has provided internal Toyota documents to various news organizations and is writing a book about the sudden-acceleration recalls.

After she began posting thousands of internal documents on her blog this year, Toyota moved for sanctions, insisting that her actions violated the protective order, which she signed in 2012 while working for a translation services vendor for the plaintiffs.

At the end of the hearing, Gilford, a partner in the Los Angeles office of New York-based Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom—who argued repeatedly that sanctions should be applied to all the documents since they were subject to the protective order—vowed that her client wouldn’t back down from forcing Benjaminson to return those materials.

“We definitely consider these documents here to be protected and will pursue additional remedies,” she said.

Toyota spokesman Scott Vazin declined to comment.

Benjaminson, who lives in Israel, did not appear for the hearing. Her attorney, Hemant (Shashi) Kewalramani, founding partner of Lee, Jorgensen, Pyle & Kewalramani in Tustin, Calif., said his client would comply with the court’s order but wanted to provide documents to the Department of Justice and an independent monitor overseeing its $1.2 billion deferred-prosecution agreementwith Toyota.

Selna appeared concerned about that request.

“I’m somewhat troubled when you said I want to leave a back door to do that,” he said. “It’s not a palatable position.”

Selna did not issue a final order, stating he planned to review his tentative decision “from top to bottom.”

Toyota, which recalled more than 10 million cars and trucks for faulty accelerator pedals and floor mats that it says caused cars to suddenly accelerate, has paid billions of dollars to resolve hundreds of consumer lawsuits, regulatory fines and the criminal investigation. But Toyota, which is in the process of settling lawsuits filed by people injured or killed in accidents, has never admitted that glitches in the electronic throttle control system of the vehicles caused the problems.

In pursuing sanctions against Benjaminson, Toyota was particularly incensed about a PowerPoint presentation prepared by a plaintiffs software expert that it claimed contained “highly confidential source code information.” Toyota considers its source code to be a trade secret, but plaintiffs attorneys have pushed for access to prove the software has bugs.

On Sept. 2, Selna ordered Benjaminson to show why she should not be sanctioned.

Benjaminson, who removed the contested materials from public view, hasinsisted she obtained most of the documents prior to signing the protective order when she worked for Toyota’s translation-services vendor, Linguistic Services Inc. At that time, she was translating for Toyota’s attorneys at Debevoise & Plimpton as part of the government’s criminal investigation.

In 2012, she began working for two plaintiffs’ translation-services vendors, American Language Services and Technovate Inc.

In his tentative order, Selna found that Benjaminson should be sanctioned as to 88 documents she obtained while working for those firms. But he found that documents Benjaminson translated for Debevoise & Plimpton were “simply not covered by the contempt order” because she hadn’t yet signed the protective order.

Gilford insisted that those documents also were produced in the multidistrict litigation and that Benjaminson had signed the protective order as of this year, when she began posting the documents on her blog.

“As of July of this year, she had all the information she needed to understand what was protected,” she said. “We believe that is enough to find her in contempt with regard to the body of documents.”

About Me

I was the subject of an Automotive News article on May 13, 2002 regarding Toyota engine oil sludge. The title of the article was "Charlene's Web..." My efforts to network with similarly-affected vehicle owners online was highlighted. During that time, I was visited by Bruce C. Ertmann, then CEO of Customer Relations at Toyota. He flew out to speak with me. He also flew out to buy out a Highlander owner who had SLUDGE with just 12,000 miles on the odometer. I had hoped he would be open to hearing about the growing engine oil sludge problem in Toyota and Lexus vehicles. Alas, he was NOT interested in hearing about the thousands of other Toyota and Lexus owners who were coming forward to speak up about this engine-destroying condition. I tried to interest him in what the others were saying about the engine condition that was costing the owners thousands of dollars in repair when their engines had to be replaced. He told me the engine information was "proprietary"....you know, like the much-coveted information about Toyota's ETCS-i...and that he couldn't discuss that aspect. I felt he needed to know that upon OIL ANALYSIS, the engine oil was shown to be prematurely breaking down even with just 2,000 miles in the oil. I felt he needed to know that thousands (roughly 10,000 complaints in the Complaint Station under "Toyota" at the time) of other Toyota owners were going online to find answers. I wanted him to know that these vehicle owners were NOT happy to be BLAMED for improper maintenance and causing their own engine oil sludge. I couldn't help wondering WHY Mr. Ertmann traveled all that distance to visit with me...first at a local park I chose as a neutral location and then for nine hours at my local Toyota dealership in Fairfax, VA...IF he was not interested in hearing about all these seriously-impacted vehicle owners. WHY did he come that far then? Obviously, his mission was to intervene in my singular situation. He wasn't there to help the consumer-networked group. Perhaps he wanted to end my online presence in the engine oil sludge matter? Perhaps he was there for damage control? Perhaps he was there to help Toyota bury its head in the sand further? Perhaps he needed to keep up the corporate denial mode? Perhaps he didn't want to reveal the real reason Toyota and Lexus vehicles were FRYING the oil (yes...it looked just like goopy, burnt oil)? After all, WHY would a CEO of Customer Relations go to the trouble to single out a very online-vocal vehicle owner? I thought it was interesting that Mr. Ertmann, in addition to holding a business degree, holds an IT degree as well. His internet technology expertise is impressive! I wasn't so impressed, though, when while online in real-time via e-mail with Mr. Ertmann much later (because I guess I didn't shut up?), I experienced a strange computer intrusion which caused me to have, in effect, a computer crash. Yes, my internet security software program indicated lots of attempted malicious intrusion attempts previously, especially originating from California. BUT, that one intrusion put my computer out of commission at the time. So the big question is, does Toyota welcome information about a large group of vehicle owners experiencing major failures? Does it seek to uncover the real cause in these instances OR does it take an easier BLAME THE OWNER approach? Additionally, when Toyota comes out with "voluntary programs" or is forced to act after class action lawsuits, does it do so to the satisfaction of its customers? I sought to answer that question when I created the online Toyota Engine Oil Sludge petition long after Toyota claimed to have just 3200 affected sludge victims. The results of that petition...which gathered 3318 signatures despite DDoS on the site and petiton saboteurs...showed that Toyota was not honoring its public promises. It was STONEWALLING its loyal customers. Is that what it's doing in the sudden unintended acceleration debacle NOW? Is the Robert & Kathy Ruginis case just the tip of the iceberg? Have the voices of the victims not been yet heard publicly? Is there an urgent need to have public disclosure about an ETCS-i problem? Let's find out... Charlene McCarthy Blake ToyotaOwnersUniteforResolutionOnline.blogspot.com